the pain of american businesses and consumers when they see these prices increase and what we can do, all the tools available we are using but in the tool chest, the most important thing we are doing is to offload the dependency on oil using natural gas for transportation, the ee electric triif i indication, biofuels, all of those things. >> so are you saying that you no longer share the view that we need to figure out how to boost gasoline prices in america? >> i no longer feel that in. >> you did then or do now? >> i represented the u.s. government and think that right now in this economic very slow but return that we need to have these prices that could well effect the comeback of our

economy and we're very worried about that. and so, of course we don't want the price of gasoline to go up. we want it to go down. but let me go to the gao report. the other part of the gao report, within a few sentences of that, showed -- said explicitly that the diligence that we did in our loan program was actually considered more thorough than what the private sector did. the thing that you're referring to, and i admit that there's some truth in that, at the beginning of this loan program starting in 2007 -- well, 2005, a seriousness since 2007, a lot of the input was in paper form. a lot of the input was such that it was -- we are moving towards making those records electronic so you have a more modern system.

it's true throughout the department of the energy. as a tech know guy, i like the fact that we have electronic records rather than paper records and i'm encouraging the department to make this transition and we are doing that program. >> i believe the gao report said that because the records are here and there and not in a central repository, that it would be harder to see what is going on overall. so as part of this risk management going forward, we recognize that we need a central repository data so that you can get instant access, and we recognize that. >> my time's expired. thank you.

>> secretary, i think it's no surprise that i'm going to talk to you about the electric vehicle. first of all, in your testimony when you talk about the fact that to win the clean energy jobs, they must do more than sell them around the world. i couldn't agree with you more. and i prappreciate the fact tha when i was able to make this program 2007 energy bill pass, it was not implemented in the last administration and it wasn't priority for you and the administration and it was in fact implemented in 2009. that's the good news. we have good things being reported and we have incredible delays year after year after

year and after spending $25 million as a startup three-year application and on something that clearly goes to the heart of keeping advanced manufacturing in this country. you know that we're competing with countries around the world. our companies are competing with countries and with advanced technology and manufacturing to keep jobs here rather than overseas, and so i wonder as we look, of course weapon want to protect taxpayer dollars. of course. that's absolutely critical. but how do we streamline this

process at this point so that it actually is meeting the goal that it was set up to do? >> well, senator, i think that we're very much in the same page here. we're in total agreement with regard to the importance of the atvm loans. we believe the atvm loans, for example, to ford and to nissan save or generate many, many thousands of jobs. it's about 30,000. a big success story because that loan enabled ford to retool, to sell is now a major leader internationally in selling very desirable, competitive cars. this is exactly what that loan program was intended to do. >> right. >> and it's a great success. i think the loan to nissan, to generate tennessee in the united states, another great success. now, having said that, we have to look at taxpayer money and as conditions change we have to say, again, going back to the

original covenant of the law, which says in these loans, is there a reasonable chance of repayment? in many instances we feel that we would like to see private equity be invested in these companies and then there are milestones after that private investment so we can say all right, we can help you grow your business and so we are very, very sensitive to those things. again, trying to balance the line, as you noted, between stimulating the manufacturers with these loans and, again, one of the big success stories of this loan program and making sure that, especially in a newer company, we have to assess whether their market projections make sense in this rapidly dynamic -- so we try to do that.

knowing that we want to stimulate investments in manufacturing in the united states. >> and i appreciate that, mr. secretary. i would just tell you that at this point the way things have gotten bogged down and the slowness of it is defeating the whole purpose of what needs to be done because it is creating an untennable situations that is able to move forward and create these technologies and waiting three years is just too long to be able to come up with those judgments. let me ask you one other thing. what changes would you suggest to make this program more effective, possibly add more opportunities for companies? we have passed now twice from this committee legislation that would expand to medium and heavyduty vehicles. it's exciting work that it being done. would you support something like

that in an opportunity to create more jobs? >> well, i think this is a program -- i'd be delighted to talk to you about it, to broaden the scope, certainly as you suggest. but also in certain things when it's advanced technology and advanced technology in a new company. you know, again, working with congress, i don't know if congress has the appetite, but to change some of that money, especially atvms, so it could not only be for loans but for grants and developing new products. i think that would do a lot. grants that would allow what is made in america and so i would be gladly willing to work with congress. if congress deems that this is an important program to stimulate job growth in the united states, advanced manufacturing in the united states that could be another way

of broadening the program. >> thank you. senator grasso? >> thank you, madam chairman. secretary, appreciate you being here. the department has awarded a $10 million prize for production of a light bulb that is supposed to be energy efficient and affordable for families. do you know how much the winning light bulb retails for in the united states? >> i'm going to make a guess, about 40, $50. >> actually, it's $50. headline, washington post last week, afford ability award goes to a $50 light bulb. do you think that's affordable for families where the government own figures shows that the average household has over $40 light bulbs? are we asking american families to spend $2,000 to trade out their light bulbs?

>> no, absolutely not. we're not asking american families to spend $40 for a light bulb. it was to incentivize the new technologies in commercial use, in buildings in hard to get places where you have to hire people to go up in a crane, already very affordable. commercial use and traffic lights, already pay for themselves. so the idea was to stimulate future development. >> you know, the president claims that he and his administration really promoting fairness. he talks about fairness an awful lot. and there was a story with a headline, more than half of obama's big fund-raisers got articles and those that collected at least $500,000 from the president's campaign were given jobs in the administration. it says, one hired -- obama hired bundler and according to e-mails, pressed staffers in which another campaign bundler

was another investor. the report concluded that the doe did not follow its own process for reviewing applications and documenting its decisions, potentially implicating a financial risk. it seems like the administration is doing a pretty good job looking out for its friends but i want to know who is looking out for american taxpayers and this sure doesn't seem fair to american taxpayer. >> first, steve spinner was firewalled from making any decision or encouragement on what you make for any loan, let alone the solyndra loan. and so what he was pressing for was after the conditional commitment was made, he was pressing to finalize things. but he was not part of the decision making process.

>> >> i'd like to ask about the motor vehicle cars that are electric. the volt failed to meet sales expectations last month. last month we learned that your department cut off funds to other electric car manufacturers because it failed to meet sales expectation. so i look at electric vehicles which range from $40,000 to $50,000 and ask if those are practical solutions for families struggling to pay bills, especially as the president is proposing an increase in the tax credit for luxury vehicles is raising the tax credit for these families to afford the right thing and fair thing to do? >> well, as you may know but if

you don't, the goal of department of energy will actually drive down the price of electric vehicles so that, for example, in the 20, $25,000 range these vehicles would be less costly, the cost of ownership would be less in come bugs, say, $15,000 because you're going to be saving in the gasoline bill. for example, you take a car and it gets 30 miles to a gallon, reasonably good combined driving. that's -- the gasoline prices is horrendous, $1,400 a year. this is a horrible pain to american consumers. if you get an electric vehicle that cost middle 20s, $20,000, to drive the same amount, 10,000

miles, it's about $300 in electricity. and so we are very focused on driving the costs of those electric vehicles down so that's exactly what you say, that it's costing the vehicle report that the american public can afford. >> thank you, madam chair. mr. chairman? >>. >> i have the inadvisable gavel here. thank you for being with us. before i ask you a question, i wanted to agree with senator lee a moment ago. we talked about the high price of gasoline. and what it does to rural america. i would hope that some of my republican friends would work with us on what we think is one of the major causes of the high price of gas right now that is speculation from wall street companies on oil futures to

market. we believe -- and i think the inference is pretty clear -- that over 40% of the oil futures market is not controlled by users, the people who actually use the product but by wall street companies who are speculating on the price of oil and driving oil price essentially up. goldman sachs themselves, one of the major speculators, estimated 56 cents on the estimate. >> well, i can't say anything about the estimate that goldman sachs has made. and actually put on additional i agree with you where it plays an important role, if somebody else wants to use the fuel and it's a

financial mechanism that helps them plan for the future. so it's playing a very important role in stabilizing company prospect and i would agree with you, when futures get traded back and forth, back and forth, nobody intends to take delivery and it enters into a different regime and to the extent it modifies prices, i don't know. but that's not what it was meant to do. >> let me ask you this. my understanding is that right now we have about 100,000 americans working at more than 5,000 solar companies. the impression is that sustainable energy is just doing terrible, companies are not making money, we're not creating new jobs. would you agree with me that, in fact, in terms of recent years,

not unrelated to the work that you and the department of energy are doing, that in fact we have seen a significant increase in the number of jobs and the installations in terms of solar panels and in terms of energy being reduced from within? are we making progress and creating jobs in those areas? >> we are. we are making dramatic progress. since 2008, if you use that as a benchmark, i think we've almost doubled the amount of renewable energy. >> that is not insignificant? >> doubling is not insignificant. >> and we're creating jobs in that process as well. would you agree with me that virtually the entire scientific community, not only in this country but around the world, recognizes, a, that global warming is real and, c, if we don't get a handle on greenhouse gas emissions there will be ee

mo enormous problems associated with that? >> yes, i i agree with you. >> let me ask you this, mr. secretary. we are talking about the role of the federal government and what it plays in terms of support of various energy technologies. is sustainable energy the only technology that was to receive help from the federal government? >> i would say, looking backward, that every form of energy received substantial federal help. oil, gas, coal, nuclear, you name it. when they were emerging technologies, they received substantial help. >> in some cases that is correct. >> for example, i find it somewhat ironic and members of this committee express their distaste for loan guarantees and

they want to build another 100, 200 nuclear power plants in this country which, giving your opinion, would not take place at all if you would not build one nuclear power plant without a loan guarantee. is that a fair statement? >> actually, that may not be a fair statement. let me go back to the original thing that i think you were driving at. after we subsidized emerging technology and it seems to be very successful on its own, there is a good case that can be made that this technology, this industry may not need federal support. and certainly we think that renewable energy, there will come a day and renewable energy, the level that it costs, will be the same as any new form of

nuclear and in this decade and in the next decade in a half, it could use a little bit more support and you could offset that and when there are industries that are doing quite well, we can now ask ourselves, and nuclear power plant, how much federal loan guarantees are holding up? >> well, there's one -- there's a vogal power plant which is a consortium and a loan guarantee is about $8.3 billion. >> loan guarantee of 8.3 billion? >> it's paid for. the credit subsidy is paid for by the applicant, though. and it's scored by the cbos a 1% score but the actual credit subsidy is paid by the credit

applicant. the reason why i'm hedging on that, i know that before i know that they are applying for a loan. >> if the federal government passes legislation. >> i think wall street would be prepared to invest one penny into nuclear power? >> i agree with you. i think price anderson -- >> thank you for the excellent work you're doing. my only point on all of this is i hear sustainable energy being attacked and yet you have an entire major industry that people want to greatly expand. better off for worse, would not last two days from now with the federal government withdrew all of its support.

okay. i think i have the chair. i think it's senator paul. >> thank you for coming, secretary chu. have you met george kaiser? >> i think i might have at round table meeting. >> more than once? >> the only one i can recall at the time was during round table, yes. >> are you concerned about the propriety of giving money, $500 million to a billionaire and then sort of changing the rules some so he gets to, you know, maybe get a better deal than taxpayers do? >> i'm convinced nothing i've seen in the white house that any connection that george kaiser had with raising the money had anything to do with the selection of the loan.

that solyndra was the one that the career people advanced forward as the one that had the most work done on that loan that satisfied the conditions of the intent of the loan. >> that's sort of troubling, though, that they were the best case scenario and then they went bankrupt. also, what is troubling to most of us is that we're giving $500 million loan to a guy that is a billionaire. why in the world would we do that? >> well, there are other investors in solyndra, also very wealthy people also. but associated with the republican party and so the decision was not given to the poll tigs. >> do you think it's a question of proprietary when you have somebody who works for you who is married to someone at solyndra when you say there is a firewall maybe but you're not

insinuating that he never wrote e-mails or corresponded with people in favor of solyndra. he did, correct? >> well, he was corresponding to after the loan was approved, corresponding to the timing -- >> do you think that's appropriate, for him to be involved at any stage? it's a little bit of an excuse for him but the word solyndra never should have left his lips or in any writing and i think it was. >> the department of energy has very vigorous standards that we enforce on any potential conflict of interest. and as you mentioned, for example, his wife was actually firewalled from having to do any business with solyndra as well. >> have you met robert kennedy jr.? >> probably. i'm not sure. >> do you recall how many times? >> well, since i'm not sure -- >> are you aware that the kennedy family fortune, that their pretty wealthy also, and

we gave robert kennedy's company 1.3 billion, are you aware that somebody who works for you who used to work for the kennedys who say was involved in that loan process? >> i'm not aware of that. >> i think that's something that we need to look into as well. i suggest that this discussion continues on with the house as well. to get large loans, $1.8 billion is a lot of money. given, once again, to a large campaign contributor of the president's. it looks unseemly and unfortunately, you're the head and donors of the presidents and it looks really bad. do you give loans to foreign companies? >> we give loans to loans for meant to manufacture in the united states. >> what about friska karmen? >> we gave loans to a design

group in los angeles and another part of the loan if they set it which the covenants of the loan which would go to the united states. the money we've given to loan is -- >> i understand that they were struggling and this money was actually going to be used in finland. >> well, as i said before, the loans we give are for american jobs and we're very clear about that. so if it's a design -- >> no money goes to finland, then? >> as i said, the -- we give loans for jobs in america. >> you can see our concern. the whole idea of picking winners and losers. people are saying that windmills which have been subsidized for years and years now, even though

we have them up and if you take away the subsidies, they will never be profitable. i just don't see the purpose. it really gets down to fundamentally what senator lee is talking about. we shouldn't be in this business at all and the thing is, you're choosing $50 light bulbs. nobody understands that in america. there's a real problem. i don't think you're going to win this. my perception is, let's get out of this business. let's not be involved with stuff like this. by your involvement in it, it doesn't look seemingly. you're overseeing something that really doesn't pass the smell test. >> thank you, senator.

senator paul, you don't have to vote if you don't want to. you have to try to play all of the percentages here. thank you, mr. secretary. i wanted to ask a little bit about just our competition in the world and i think it's important that we keep pace and don't fall behind in china and libya and europe and just as i was listening to questions of the panel, i was thinking of all the above and i know the president gets criticized sometimes when, say, for

example, he may not approve offshore drilling everywhere. when they say, well, what about all of the above? and my feeling is, all of the above does not mean all of all of the above. but if it does mean all of all of the above, certainly it means innovation and it means -- which means r and d, r and b, which is basic and patterned after the internet which i believe it's created jobs. >> i think you're right. >> thank you for that validation. it also includes, when mr. alison referred to as investme